Today the two Oregon schools demonstrated their superiority over the two Washington schools with a clean sweep of the Dawgs and Cougs.

First, the #14 Beavers, despite playing poorly enough offensively to lose to any other team in the Pac 12, still had enough to beat one of the weakest teams in the nation in the Washington State Cougars. Beaver DB Jordan Poyer, with the entire varsity football team from his high school alma mater in the stadium watching, picked off three passes to make up for the three interceptions his teammate Sean Mannion threw as OSU beat WSU 19-6.

Later, the #2 Ducks made quick work of the #23 Washington Huskies by jumping out to a 35-7 halftime lead with their hurry-up offense and coasting to an easy 52-21 win. Duck freshman QB Marcus Mariota had another efficient day, throwing 4 TD passes against only one pick, and RB Kenjon Barner led all rushers for the game with 122 yards on 20 carries.

Overall, a very good day for Oregon's two major universities as they improved their combined football record to 10-0. Next week the Ducks get the weekend off as the Beavers travel to Provo, Utah, to play a non-conference game against the Cougars of BYU.

Haha! Yes! What is amazing to me to think is that the Ravens have the 2nd ranked Offense this season, and are still in the bottom twenty on defense!! It is bizarro world all the more when the new Falcons defense is eating teams for breakfast and knocking quarterbacks out of games. I am defensive oriented, I like heavy hitting defense teams, but the tables seem to be turning around the NFL..

Oh yeah, Matt Ryan just pushed the Falcons into a new era, their first time 5-0 in franchise history! Good for him

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Haha! Yes! What is amazing to me to think is that the Ravens have the 2nd ranked Offense this season, and are still in the bottom twenty on defense!! It is bizarro world all the more when the new Falcons defense is eating teams for breakfast and knocking quarterbacks out of games. I am defensive oriented, I like heavy hitting defense teams, but the tables seem to be turning around the NFL..

You do realize that as an offense becomes more oriented toward scoring a lot of points and less so toward controlling the ball and the clock, they will actually give their opponents' offenses more opportunities to move the ball and score themselves? It doesn't surprise me at all that the Ravens are now giving up more yards.

You do realize that as an offense becomes more oriented toward scoring a lot of points and less so toward controlling the ball and the clock, they will actually give their opponents' offenses more opportunities to move the ball and score themselves? It doesn't surprise me at all that the Ravens are now giving up more yards.

Yes but that is entirely the point. Its not just yards that Ravens are giving up, more crucially its point!! Even last season the Ravens strategy and style was to run their game through Defense, by stopping teams from scoring and stopping teams from getting the opportunity to score. Ravens were excellent at causing turnovers and at blocking completions, so even against teams with explosive offense, such opponents would naturally score less. It wasn't necessarily about possession time, just about letting the defense smother the other team. Now, its not just about points allowed, but the entire Ravens defense isn't looking half as sharp, as aggressive, as smothering as even last season. We lost a few guys, and Suggs is out on injuries, but personnel isn't everything, its also the coordinators and the plays. For example, Atlanta didn't exactly add anything (we did get Asante Samuel and I feel he is making a big impact) but we did get a new coordinator in Mike Nolan and his strategies and plays are radically different than anything Falcons have used before. The team is buying into it and its working. In Baltimore, the team has shifted more so towards offense, and it wasn't that offense was lacking for them, its that their defense was more consistently involved in every game. Hopefully this past Kansas City game was a turning point since they shut em out to 9-6, but even KC got 325 yards out of it, and for Ravens to have been allowing teams to consistently get above 300 is unspeakable. Than again, we are creeping up on 700 yard games, so maybe you're right, maybe for this season 400 yards is the new 300 so Ravens would be about where they should be?

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

You do realize that as an offense becomes more oriented toward scoring a lot of points and less so toward controlling the ball and the clock, they will actually give their opponents' offenses more opportunities to move the ball and score themselves? It doesn't surprise me at all that the Ravens are now giving up more yards.

Yes but that is entirely the point. Its not just yards that Ravens are giving up, more crucially its point!!

But opportunities for more yards also means opportunities for more points. The key to understanding this is that teams who score quickly and often will give themselves and their opponents more possessions, which translates into more yards and more points, than those offenses who take their times and burn off large chunks of the clock in the process of driving to a score. Reading your reply, I'm not sure you quite understand that yet.

You do realize that as an offense becomes more oriented toward scoring a lot of points and less so toward controlling the ball and the clock, they will actually give their opponents' offenses more opportunities to move the ball and score themselves? It doesn't surprise me at all that the Ravens are now giving up more yards.

Yes but that is entirely the point. Its not just yards that Ravens are giving up, more crucially its point!!

But opportunities for more yards also means opportunities for more points. The key to understanding this is that teams who score quickly and often will give themselves and their opponents more possessions, which translates into more yards and more points, than those offenses who take their times and burn off large chunks of the clock in the process of driving to a score. Reading your reply, I'm not sure you quite understand that yet.

Please, don't be so condescending, its unbecoming of you

I'm not quite sure you understand what exactly I am criticising about Ravens new defense. Its not just about yards gained or lost to me, its about the lack of smothering coverage and pressure on the offense, less interceptions and blocks, weaker defensive plays drawn up, and less turnovers in general, in other words an entirely unrecognizable Ravens!

I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with it as a strategy. Ravens strategy has largely been NOT to score more themselves and not to play faster offense like you mentioned. You are right, Flacco running mostly no-huddle has dramatically increased the pace of their offense which again, is both gaining and subsequently giving up more yards. I agree completely with your analysis there..

However and again, just because you give a team 400 yards doesn't mean you necessarily give up points. Turn-overs, forcing punts, and generally smothering the offense allows for (a) the clock to get chewed up which benefits a lead and (b) shut out teams to low scoring situations. Yards do not always translate into touchdowns, and that is precisely where defense plays so heavily into teams like Baltimore.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 11:09:49 AM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Quote

It's hard to imagine another NBA dynasty happening — the league is too talented, too deep and too smart. (You're right, I got carried away. Let's tweak that last part to "so much smarter than it was.") Instead, we'll see more of a word that doesn't exist and absolutely should. I'm thinking it's a hybrid word for "contender" and "dynasty," something that captures contenders who remained relevant for a significant stretch and won at least one championship.

The word? Dynastender.

Grantland.com

HAHAHAHAHA!! Bill Simmons strikes again, I just love this dude

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Ja, ja, blah. European soccer has the Champions League, which is essentially the same thing as a playoff. If there's one universal in sport, it's the fact that fans like seeing the winners pitted against winners. How is this a bad thing?

Ja, ja, blah. European soccer has the Champions League, which is essentially the same thing as a playoff. If there's one universal in sport, it's the fact that fans like seeing the winners pitted against winners. How is this a bad thing?

The European Cup is completely different because of the number of clubs competing. But there is a round robin group stage, and after/prior to the group stage there are home-away series played between the clubs (in pairs) in each round all the way to the final (in neutral venue). Hmmm, sounds like a ROUND-ROBIN!!!

Each national league (Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, etc for every country) has a round robin (two games against each team, once at home, once away) tournament season (or in case of some countries 1.5 round robin aka each club plays three games against each team, either once at home and twice away or vice-versa) (most without play-offs), that's what my initial post was about. The European Cup is just an international tournament for qualifying teams from the national leagues, not a league itself. DUH.

Please, learn about how football works before you critique it. Thanks.

Ja, ja, blah. European soccer has the Champions League, which is essentially the same thing as a playoff. If there's one universal in sport, it's the fact that fans like seeing the winners pitted against winners. How is this a bad thing?

The European Cup is completely different because of the number of clubs competing. But there is a round robin group stage, and after/prior to the group stage there are home-away series played between the clubs (in pairs) in each round all the way to the final (in neutral venue). Hmmm, sounds like a ROUND-ROBIN!!!

Each national league (Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, etc for every country) has a round robin (two games against each team, once at home, once away) tournament season (or in case of some countries 1.5 round robin aka each club plays three games against each team, either once at home and twice away or vice-versa) (most without play-offs), that's what my initial post was about. The European Cup is just an international tournament for qualifying teams from the national leagues, not a league itself. DUH.

Please, learn about how football works before you critique it. Thanks.

round robins are important, and i like seeing group stages for prelims, but the need for playoffs is still there.

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

The majority of world cups use playoffs in the later rounds, from the rugby world up, to soccer,. the hockey championships do too, not to mention the olympics.

IM a fan of the hybrid systems in place personally, use round robin to get like, 8 teams or so(whatever the number needs to be), and then advance to playoffs.

The Currie Sup also does this, for rugby in south africa.

I do like series tho, bests of 7s, better than single games tho, but thats just me.

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

A round-robin tournament (or all-play-all tournament) is a competition "in which each contestant meets all other contestants in turn" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1971, G. & C. Merriam Co), p.1980

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

A round-robin tournament (or all-play-all tournament) is a competition "in which each contestant meets all other contestants in turn" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1971, G. & C. Merriam Co), p.1980

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

A round-robin tournament (or all-play-all tournament) is a competition "in which each contestant meets all other contestants in turn" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1971, G. & C. Merriam Co), p.1980

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

A round-robin tournament (or all-play-all tournament) is a competition "in which each contestant meets all other contestants in turn" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1971, G. & C. Merriam Co), p.1980

I was referring to what they did starting with the round of 16.

That's what I was referencing.

In which case, either/and: A: im confused by what you are saying B: we are arguing about semantics

from the UEFA site "Knockout phaseFrom the last 16 until the semi-finals, clubs play two matches against each other on a home-and-away basis with the same rules as the qualifying and play-off rounds applied. In the last 16, group winners play runners-up other than teams from their own pool or nation, while from the quarter-finals on the draw is free."http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2013/matches/round=2000348/index.html

that is exactly what i would call playoffs/postseason(because, to me, they are the same words, po/ps)

there is a ladder involved, and the winner of the home and home series moves on to face the winner of another home and home, and so forth, until the final, which is a single game. this ladder structure is what playoffs are all to me, and not a round robin.

Also, i would call the home/home in the later stages a series, and as such playoffs, but on that point, it is just semantics.

A round-robin tournament (or all-play-all tournament) is a competition "in which each contestant meets all other contestants in turn" - Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (1971, G. & C. Merriam Co), p.1980

I was referring to what they did starting with the round of 16.

That's what I was referencing.

In which case, either/and: A: im confused by what you are saying B: we are arguing about semantics

from the UEFA site "Knockout phaseFrom the last 16 until the semi-finals, clubs play two matches against each other on a home-and-away basis with the same rules as the qualifying and play-off rounds applied. In the last 16, group winners play runners-up other than teams from their own pool or nation, while from the quarter-finals on the draw is free."http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2013/matches/round=2000348/index.html

that is exactly what i would call playoffs/postseason(because, to me, they are the same words, po/ps)

there is a ladder involved, and the winner of the home and home series moves on to face the winner of another home and home, and so forth, until the final, which is a single game. this ladder structure is what playoffs are all to me, and not a round robin.

and the winner would be declared the person with the most points, like in the french league for soccer.

playoffs(im rambling a bit, just to make sure I'm kinda going clear)

A,B, C, D again

AvD

BvC

and then, winner of AD v winner of BC, and the winner of that is the championship, and that is what i call playoffs.

I see your point.

But I still think that each professional league, just needs a round robin tournament to settle a champion. Play-offs are useful when they have far too many teams for a league (World Cup, Continental Tournaments (Euro, NA, SA, African, and Asian Champions Leagues; Euros; CONCACAF; etc), Olympics) if they do it in a "round robin" format of play-offs (minus Olympics, World Cups, and International Continental Tournaments (ex. Euros) since they are neutral).

However and again, just because you give a team 400 yards doesn't mean you necessarily give up points. Turn-overs, forcing punts, and generally smothering the offense allows for...

In the same argument, you refer to allowing an opponent 400 yards while smothering their offense. Are you sure you understand what you're talking about?

(a) The Ravens haven't given up 400 yards yet.. (b) I agree with you completely, giving up 400 yards would not be good defense, what I was facetiously implying was that 400 yards is the new 300 yards. If a team closed out a Tom Brady kind of offense to the mid-200s yardage I would say that is good defense. If 400 yards is the new 300 yards, then keeping teams to the mid-300s might also be good defense. I don't think so, but we will have to wait and see at the end of the season which teams who are the best defense and how many yards they gave up. Right now Houston is number one and even they've given up a few 300 yard games and we're only five games in..

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10